Time Warner Cable can’t call its network “fiber optic”

Verizon complained about Time Warner Cable ads that trumpeted a "fiber optic …

The back-and-forth between AT&T and Verizon over the quality of their wireless services ended up making its way into some high-profile primetime commercials. But it's not the only fight that Verizon has been waging with competitors.

The company also took issue with advertising run by Time Warner Cable, which bragged about offering an "advanced fiber optic network." Not so, said Verizon, which has the distinction of being the only major fiber to the home provider. In a ruling issued today, the National Advertising Review Board agreed with Verizon's claims.

In the US, claims made in advertisements are policed voluntarily; most major advertisers belong to the National Advertising Review Council. Any issues with the factual nature of an ad can result in a formal complaint to that group's National Advertising Division. Complaints about any decisions made there are handled by the National Advertising Review Board.

In practice, most of these complaints are filed by competitors. So, for example, the Campbell Soup Company complained about General Mills saying that its Progresso Light Soup was "now even better," but NARB decided that General Mills could back up that claim.

In this case, Verizon was upset by a series of claims made in Time Warner Cable ads that seemed to imply that Time Warner, too, provided the full fiber optic experience to its users. Some of the specific phrases cited by Verizon in its complaint include "[Time Warner's] fiber-optic network delivers speeds up to 15 Megs for a dramatically faster online experience," and "[Time Warner's] advanced fiber optic network delivers the future to you... for less."

Not enough fiber

In its defense, Time Warner pointed out that much of its network is fiber optic, including most of its backbone and the connections to its local nodes. Only the last mile service is handled by coaxial cable. (Like most modern cable systems, Time Warner runs a hybrid fiber/coax [HFC] network.) And the company argued that its system was often far better than competing offerings, which it termed "indisputably inferior products."

The NARB panel's decision recognized the distinction between fiber to the node vs. the Verizon fiber to the home offering, and it decided that the veracity of calling either one "fiber optic" depended on consumer perception. Neither company provided consumer perception data, however, so the panel had to consider how a consumer would perceive the difference.

"The record in this case indicates that ‘last mile’ architecture is relevant to a network’s performance capabilities,” the panel stated. "Prior NAD cases recognized differences between 'Fiber to the home' networks and 'Fiber to the node' networks, and the evidence in the present case shows those differences continue to exist." Given those differences, it was inappropriate for Time Warner to call its service "fiber optic."

With that decision, Time Warner has exhausted its appeals. So, although the company disagrees with NARB, it will change its advertising to reflect the ruling.